THE EDUCATOR

JULY 2004

Letter from the Editor

Contents |  Previous |  Next
 


      In this edition we focus on the issue of children with a visual impairment who have multiple disabilities or, as they are described in some countries "children with MDVI". This has proved a more difficult theme to encompass than you might imagine because there appears to be little shared understanding about exactly who these children are.

Although there is no widely agreed definition of MDVI the term is usually applied to children with complex needs that often include a visual impairment accompanied by severe learning difficulties and physical disabilities. The estimates of the incidence of MDVI vary enormously according what part of the world you live in. Recent surveys in the UK (eg Keil 2002) suggest that children with MDVI account for between a third and half of the British population of children with visual impairment. In the UK all of these children are entitled to education and can be found in a range of educational provision.

As we can see from the contributions in this issue, in other countries these children appear to constitute a tiny minority of the population of children with a visual impairment and they are often excluded from education altogether. For example in Nigeria, Sr Justina Obiajunwa (the principal of the Pacelli School for the Blind in Lagos) reports that from her perspective that although there is some provision for children who are Deafblind, "we do not have any program for Multiply Handicapped Visually Impaired persons".

Why are these children so often excluded from education? One possibility is that given the complexity of their other disabilities, the visual impairment of children with MDVI may not be recognised and they do not come into contact with visual impairment services. However even when these children do come into contact with specialist services, they are often turned away. As Akhil Paul in India comments in this issue (p25) this rejection of these children is often rationalised by schools for the visually impaired on the grounds that "they do not fall within their designated target group. Sometimes real concerns such as lack of information and expertise, inadequate infrastructure and poor staff-student ratios are offered as excuses, but it is mostly schools' lack of ...willingness to work with these children that forces them back to their cocoon of isolation".

The extreme hardships that face many children with MDVI and their families are graphically illustrated in the article by Isuwa Jurmang (pp22 to 24). However on the happier side, there is also evidence in this edition that an understanding of the distinct needs of these children is beginning to take shape and that opportunities for teaching and learning are starting to emerge.

We can see in this edition how specialist provision has developed in Indonesia, Hong Kong and Thailand. The pattern often seems to be that services for children with MDVI emerge from provision for children who are Deafblind. Although some of the techniques commonly used in the education of children with MDVI (such as the use of Objects of Reference or Object Symbols) were originally developed for use with Deafblind children, the needs of children with MDVI and the techniques for teaching them are beginning to be recognised as distinct. The challenge that faces us as educators of persons with a visual impairment is to see children with MDVI as a natural part of our responsibilities. If Education for All means anything it means education for these children.



Steve McCall
Editor

Contents |  Previous |  Next